[karen nickols]

It can almost make your feel "ashamed" for adopting. Until you look again at that beautiful child that you love with a heart so full it could bust. And just to think "they aren't our own"-- we don't have to love them. I have 2 bio and 2 adopted. I would protect them all with my life. Blessings to all that are loving, caring for, supporting and encouraging an adopted blessing.

[joepegcamp]

Wasn't this article on a Web site that promotes 'reproductive health?' Of course these guys are going to say things like that--fewer international adoptions means that more and more prospective parents will have to turn to science to have their children.

The article was also reprinted from Foreign Policy magazine. Sounds like this article was written by an academic who doesn't leave the campus often, and who only thinks what others tell him/her to think.

Typical policy wank. Long on perspective, short on actual experience.

Yes, there is corruption in international adoption. Yes, babies have been stolen from the birth parents. But that's not every child and every situation.

We also met our birth mother. She signed off on the adoption 100 percent. Her two older boys were already running the streets--she didn't want that to happen to this baby, her son, our son.

[JosieWales]

Originally Posted by iccsd

That was repulsive, but look at where it's coming from - the abortion industry. They see adoption as competition. They view adoption as "an industry" which prevents them from making money from their "industry" - abortion. They don't understand the complexity of adoption and see the only solution to an unplanned pregnancy is abortion.

I should not have read that before bed. It makes me so angry. I'll never get to sleep now!

What? I agree the article is short-sighted and incorrect and offensive, but do we really think anyone truly thinks abortion is the only solution to unplanned pgs? I am very much pro-choice, but I would never, ever ever ever have one, or tell someone that's the best option. I push for adoption any chance I get (and I see a lot of pg teens). I just find it hard to imagine that abortion is an 'industry' with people at the helm making decisions to help themselves make money off abortions. The doctors make money, sure, but is there a big industry conspiracy? I don't think so. Is anyone truly PRO-abortion?

[SKL]

Originally Posted by JosieWales

Is anyone truly PRO-abortion?

Unfortunately, there are people who counsel pregnant women / teens that the only responsible choice is abortion. There are also some who have stated a belief that young people who cannot afford to care for a child should not even have a choice, but should be forced to abort. I am sorry but I have seen this and I do not believe it is rare.

Are they doing it to get rich? I don't believe there is one right answer to that question. Clearly there is money in it. It could be about money for some people; just like adoption is about money for some people. There is no question that both adoption and abortion are "industries" in a non-judgmental sense of the word.

I feel another thing at work with "reproductive health" advocates dissing adoption is defensiveness. When we say "adoption is the loving option," etc., defensive people may hear this as "abortion is the callous option" and look for ways to attack this suggestion.

Whatever the true motivation, I feel that the article in question was not motivated by love or caring. It was not written by anyone who ever experienced or understood the emotions that adoptive parents go through during a long adoption process, nor witnessed the trauma and long-term struggles of a child who was adopted at a relatively older age.

[JosieWales]

Originally Posted by SKL

Unfortunately, there are people who counsel pregnant women / teens that the only responsible choice is abortion. There are also some who have stated a belief that young people who cannot afford to care for a child should not even have a choice, but should be forced to abort. I am sorry but I have seen this and I do not believe it is rare.

You are probably right--there are people who counsel that way. I concede. And the thought of forced abortion is sickening, regardless. Being forced to keep the baby by the gov't is pretty disturbing, too.

Originally Posted by SKL

I feel another thing at work with "reproductive health" advocates dissing adoption is defensiveness. When we say "adoption is the loving option," etc., defensive people may hear this as "abortion is the callous option" and look for ways to attack this suggestion.

They should get defensive. It IS the callous option! As I said, I'm pro-choice, as I could never tell another woman what's right for her, but I personally despise it.

Originally Posted by SKL

Whatever the true motivation, I feel that the article in question was not motivated by love or caring. It was not written by anyone who ever experienced or understood the emotions that adoptive parents go through during a long adoption process, nor witnessed the trauma and long-term struggles of a child who was adopted at a relatively older age.

Totally agree!

[SKL]

Originally Posted by JosieWales

I personally despise it.

I'm with you on this. It really hurts my heart.

[rjvpmn]

I Read Some Of The Article And I Quit. Just Made Me Mad. I Posted A Reply . I Wish People Would Quit Making Blanket Statements. I Know There Are People Who Read These Articles And Think They Are Gospel And They Dont Know A Thing About Adoption.. Then They Look At Me Or My Kids And Think They Are Stolen. Its Been Anything But Easy And My Kids Came With Health Issues. I Love My Kids More Than Anything So When Someone Paints Them A Certain Way My Hair Goes Up.

[Devora]

I couldn't get the link to open up, but I'm assuming this is the same article with this title that I read on a different adoption forum. All of the adoptive parents on that forum also had concerns about the article, but we also thought it raised some legitimate issues that need to be addressed. There is much need for reform in adoption, both internationally and domestically.

Here's the response I made on the other forum:
-------------------
I think this is a provocative article, even if there are points where I don't care for the language being used. I think it does raise some important points. However, I think even in its attempt to present a more complex (and realistic) picture of the issues it falls into oversimplifying the situation. A couple of points particularly stood out to me:

(1) Definition of orphan: Yes, what most people think of when they say "orphan" is not the same as most of the children's reality. However, I don't think this is anything new. I remember reading about the "Orphan Trains" in the US in the early 1900s. The popular image is that those were orphans who were sent from the cities out west where they found new families. But reality is that most of them had families. In fact, a high percentage of the children were sent by their parents to the aid society running the program with the expectation that their children would be cared for and taught a trade -- it wasn't about abandonment, orphaning, or adoption. And many of the children returned to their biological families after a few years. There was no expectation of "permanency" for many of them. Yet, they are described as "orphan trains".

Also, even if a child has one living parent or other living family members, if they cannot care for them and there is no reason to expect that to change in the near to moderately-near future, then I think it oversimplifies the situation to say "they're not orphans because they have living family." And what about the right of a parent to choose adoption for her/his child as the best way they see to parent/provide for them? What about a parent who does not want extended family or the other parent raising the child because those people are known to be abusive? Very, very few domestic adoptions involve "true" orphans either. So the same critique could be leveled against domestic adoptions, whether they are private adoptions or through foster care. Yes, families should not have to relinquish a child due to poverty. But we are many, many generations from eliminating abject poverty, famine and war. These children need families now.

(2) Older children: While I agree that there are concerns about the "industry" of adoption and the focus on parents wanting children versus on the needs of children, the article makes it sound as if that's all due to the demands of prospective adoptive parents. This is particularly argued in the discussion of Guatemala as an example. However, the fact is that the inability to adopt older children living in orphanages in Guatemala is also significantly influenced by Guatemalan law. Those children are largely not available for adoption by anyone (domestically or internationally) because of the stringent requirements to declare a child abandoned (even if the child has lived in the orphanage for years) and the fact that the orphanages bear the legal costs of getting the abandonment decree so most of the children never even have the chance of being adopted because the orphanages can't afford the legal process of filing for an abandonment decree. So children can live for years in an orphanage and never be able to be adopted -- even if there were families wanting to adopt them. Many of the younger children (preschool through young elementary) could find families in Guatemala or abroad if only they were declared abandoned. Many agencies, when asked about toddlers or young children, would say that they could not refer any children older than a year because they simply were not available -- and they were being truthful in that. There are thousands of children in Guatemala needing homes, but without an abandonment decree from a judge they cannot be adopted.

I completely agree that international adoption is misrepresented and misunderstood. I think agencies should do a lot more to educate the public, educate prospective adoptive parents, promote transparency, and advocate for the needs of children. One of the reasons we chose the agency we did was because of their work on behalf of children and the ways they embodied serving the needs of children rather than all the focus being on us. So those agencies do exist but there aren't enough of them, in my opinion.

So while I think the article raises important points about education and reform, it also oversimplifies the situation as well.

[Saya]

Devora, thanks for a really intelligent and nuanced response (as usual). I completely agree. There are a lot of things in this article I don't completely agree with, but I also think it brings up some important points about the need for reform - and the need for potential adoptive parents to go into these matters with clear eyes and heads.

[TheFoxx]

Originally Posted by busterleroy

I have never understood why the pro-abortion crowd is so anti-adoption. Never considered competition as a motive...interesting.

Actually, maybe the words I am looking for are sick and selfish.

Busterleroy - I am pro choice. Just about everyone I know IRL is pro choice. No one I know is anti-adoption. The key word here is CHOICE. It has been my choice not to have an unwanted pregnancy so I took precautions that I was blessed to have available to me. I was never a victim of rape or incest during my childbearing years so that wasn't at issue. The only people I know that are anti-adoption are in the adoptee and/or first parent category.

SKL - I don't know where you are talking about but every Planned Parenthood counseling gives fair and balanced information on ALL of the options available to pregnant women. That includes parenting, adoption and abortion. I've known counselors and even some execs that would fire someone on the spot if they cohersed a pregnant woman into ANY choice. I think it is the exception and not the rule.

[SKL]

Originally Posted by Saya

I also think it brings up some important points about the need for reform - and the need for potential adoptive parents to go into these matters with clear eyes and heads.

I agree with this, except that the mean-spirited tone won't really serve this end. For those in the adoption community, it will mainly offend. For those outside the adoption community, it will mislead and create a general negative impression that will be difficult to correct.

It seems to me that the valid positive goals you mentioned could be more effectively discussed without the bad attitude.

[JGarrick]

Originally Posted by busterleroy

I have never understood why the pro-abortion crowd is so anti-adoption. Never considered competition as a motive...interesting.

I don't understand where you got this impression. I've yet to meet someone who's pro-choice and anti-adoption.

I don't want to hijack this thread to turn it into an abortion debate, but I must say that ascribing callous motives to people with no basis in fact isn't a good way to go about finding common ground.

Most of the people in both the pro-choice and pro-life camps have one goal in common that should override all other concerns - a reduction in the number of abortions. If everyone focused on that commonality instead of calling each other names and casting accusations of bad faith, we might make some progress.

In reply to the original post, I didn't read the whole article, but looking at the responses, many seem to be nearly as one-sided as the article was. The issues she raises do exist. I don't believe they're as prevalent as described, but denying the problem doesn't make it go away, nor does taking offense when someone discusses it, nor does shooting the messenger.

While I understand that people may (and rightfully so) chafe at the notion that they're off buying up babies in foreign lands, responding with hostility only hurts your own credibility by making it look like she hit a little too close to home. I know many of you may just be venting some frustration to a like-minded audience, but away from these friendly confines it's important to keep a cool head and refute her points with real evidence.

[JoshGuat]

Originally Posted by SKL

-the mean-spirited tone won't really serve this end. For those in the adoption community, it will mainly offend.

It seems to me that the valid positive goals you mentioned could be more effectively discussed without the bad attitude.

SKL-My thought exactly as I was reading this.


I do not think that people who are interested in adoption would even consider her point of view. Her bias seems to be personal and bitter. Her assumptions used as certainties are not remotely believable. There were as accurate as statistics She did not have balance as Julie stated, and that was the first thing that I picked up in her writing. I personally do not think she is motivational.........just insulting. That never gets the educational community, nor the ignorant on board.

[BosMom]

To quote the article: "Westerners have been sold the myth of a world orphan crisis."

Huh? Isn't this "myth" being "sold" in television ads to send money to UNICEF?!!

Arg.... BAD journalism.

[MamaS]

Originally Posted by JGarrick

I don't understand where you got this impression. I've yet to meet someone who's pro-choice and anti-adoption.

Unfortunately, there are many private counseling agencies allied with "Reproductive Health Clinics" who counsel pregnant clients to consider only abortion. Particularly younger women are told -- "You don't want to go through the misery of pregnancy and the pain of labor. You don't want to 'give away' your baby to strangers and never know what happens to it. You don't want to have to postpone your education. You don't want all your friends and family knowing about your pregnancy, etc." So, just have a quick, painless abortion and go on about your life without a backward glance! By the time the young women find out it doesn't play out that way, it is too late.

I would like to think that the counselors honestly believe this spiel, and are not just trying to get more clients for the clinic -- but I can't imagine any woman of normal intelligence really thinking that an abortion is easy and forgettable.